Islam and Dialogue

Islam and Dialogue

1997 9-12 September-December 13-17 Islam and Dialogue (1658) The world’s religious systems fall into two broad categories, the one upholding the concept of the maniness of reality and the other believing in the oneness of reality. To the first category belong the Aryan religions and to the second the Semitic.

The Islamic viewpoint in this matter is that conviction is the very bedrock of religion. This is called iman (faith). Where a man has no firm faith in his religion, he cannot put his heart and soul into its practice. He cannot fully involve himself in it. And when the truth is taken to be many, religion can only be an outer shell. It cannot assume the form which the Qur’an calls a faith which has penetrated the heart. (1: 14)

This concept of Islam does not in any way preclude dialogue. The difference in the concept of dialogue is only in respect of methodology and not in respect of the philosophy of the dialogue. If, to those religious systems which believe in the maniness of reality, or in the maniness of paths to reach the reality, the basis of dialogue is mutual recognition, to Islam the basis of dialogue is mutual respect.

In any dialogue between the adherents of the Aryan religions and Semitic religions, two assumptions will always be central to the proceedings. One will be that while the former believe themselves to be in possession of the truth, they also concede that others may make a similar claim. The second will be that the latter, holding their position of being sole possessors of the truth, will present their viewpoint with all seriousness and will expect the other party to do likewise. On the basis of this mutual understanding, each side will listen with an open mind to the other’s point of view – regardless of the initial standpoint. Then the point of view established by logical argument will be acceptable to all participants.

In the history of Islam an example of this kind of dialogue is found in the life of the Prophet himself. After the emigration, when the Prophet of Islam built the first mosque in Medina, he invited the representatives of other religions – Judaism and Christianity – to hold a dialogue with these representatives in an open atmosphere. It was a trialogue which had probably taken place for the first time in the history of religion.

There may be three forms in this matter. One could be that there is total agreement between the two parties, in such a case, the need to hold a dialogue does not arise. Two, that everyone remains doubtful about his viewpoint. In the absence of true conviction, deliberation between these groups cannot technically be termed a dialogue, but it is rather in the nature of a discussion. Three, clear differences exist between the participants while some hold one thing to be right, others hold something else to be right. It is between such groups that dialogue takes place. The condition for dialogue is dissent, and dissent will always be expressed by those who consider themselves to be on a truer path than others.

The basic question in this connection is whether truth is real or relative. If truth is held to be relative, the concept of multiple reality can have some relevance. But if truth is held as real, this concept of multiple truth will be deemed without basis. It is because relative truth may be several but real truth will only be one. Holding truth to be real and then holding it to be many is a contradiction in terms. Opting for one will mean abandoning the other.

It is not proper to think that if someone believes that only his religion is true, he will not show respect for the adherents of other traditions. Such apprehension results from underestimating the capacity of human beings. A man, while respecting his mother shows due regard at the same time for other people’s mothers. Regarding one woman as his own mother does not render him incapable of such respect for other mothers. Human psychology goes far and beyond such limitations. A western thinker has aptly said: I am large enough to contain all these contradictions.

A devotee’s belief that only his religion is true demands that he convey this reality to others. But such action has nothing to do with conversion. It is only what is called iblagh (communication) in the Qur’an, that is, the communication of the divine message to others. Addressing the Prophet of Islam, the Qur’an has this to say: You are not at all a warder over them. (88:22)

Islam aims not so much at conversion as at making people aware of its message. Such action results in feeling of well wishing welling up in his heart, rather than the result of the feelings of superiority. So far as forced conversion is concerned, that is totally unlawful in Islam.

It is human nature to want to share with others anything good which one has discovered. It is only very selfish and narrow-minded people who like to reserve the good things of this life exclusively for themselves. According to Islam this is the case with truth, when the truth is discovered, a man’s humanity itself gives him a great urge to communicate it to others. The discovery of truth and the communication of this discovery are, in fact, inseparable.

Some extremist Muslims indulging in violence in our times have led people to the conclusion that Islam is an intolerant religion. But this is certainly not true. Islam is as tolerant a religion as any other. The only difference between Islam and other religions is that while to some religions tolerance is based on mutual recognition, to Islam tolerance is based on mutual respect. On this matter the Islamic viewpoint can be summed up as: Follow one and respect all.

Bringing harmony to human society is undoubtedly a noble goal. But harmony relates to social behaviour rather than to the adoption of a theoretical position. If we want to encourage a brotherly relationship to develop between two people, one wearing white shirt and the other a coloured one, this will not come about by abhorring the difference in the colour of their apparel or insisting on uniformity of colour. The establishment of harmony between the two is fully possible by admitting and accepting the difference in colour. Our past history is witness to this and we repeatedly see the truth of this in present day events.

The natural formula for brotherhood is to overlook differences and to show a proper respect for the right of others. This is the Islamic viewpoint in this matter. Misunderstanding on this subject has been created by taking certain verses from the Qur’an to suggest that the Qur’an commands the waging of war on and the subjugation of all the nations of the world. It is said that in such a case it is impossible for the adherents of Islam to live peacefully with the followers of other religions. But this is a sheer misunderstanding. Wherever the Qur’an has indicated that warfare is in order, it is solely on the grounds of defence.

All the nations of the world have it enshrined in their constitutions that if any country or group attacks them, they will fight to defend themselves. All these nations are nevertheless living peacefully under the U.N. umbrella. Exactly the same is the case with Islam. Islam issues no injunction to wage war except in case of defence. In the absence of aggression, no fighting will take place. The general rule in Islam is peaceful co-existence, with war only as a last resort, when circumstances make it unavoidable.

Follow one and respect all

On the question of social harmony, Islamic tenets are based on the realities of nature. The truth is that differences are a part of life. The fact that no two human beings think alike has been proved by psychological and biological studies. This is so marked a feature of the human psyche that each of the calls of the human body bears its stamp. So any formula which seeks to eradicate differences in order to bring about unity is simply not feasible. The only possible and practicable formula is to tolerate differences so that all may live in unity and harmony. Islam being a religion of nature remains in consonance with nature in the formulation of its approaches.

It would not be true to say that the concept of single truth begets intolerance, while the concept of multiple truth stands for tolerance. Those who hold to this view are perhaps equating multiple truth with agnosticism. But this is an invalid proposition. It is, of course, possible for agnostic, or one who is lukewarm towards religion, to become indifferent to others’ concepts. But the case of the staunch adherent of religion is an entirely different matter, for religion, whether advocating multiple or single truth, necessarily produces conviction. And the moment conviction becomes a factor to be reckoned with, it becomes impossible to weigh one set of beliefs against another.

This is why we see the believer in multiple truth present his viewpoint with the same intensity as the believer in the oneness of reality. Both are strong in the advocacy of their ideas, both are equally severe in their appraisal of each other’s standpoints. Both desire equally that their views should prevail and the other’s views be proved untrue. Past history and current affairs abound in such attitudes.

A harmonious society is formed by tolerating rather than by bulldozing various viewpoints. The right way to engender tolerance is to bring about the kind of intellectual awakening which will make people realise that whatever the circumstances, they have to live in this world through adjustment. In this world of dissension the only secret of a peaceful life is to keep all differences on a strictly intellectual plane, so that they may not lead to violence in practical life.